StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is there any logical in-universe reason for ISDs to have big exposded bridge towers?

Coiler wrote:Is there any logical in-universe reason for ISDs to have big exposded bridge towers?

Maybe there are some adverse phsycological effects on a starships crew if they are deep inside the ship and never see the outside world. Or morale, morale can be important, but I dont see any other reason.

Bridge crew can escape more easily if ship explodes?

I can't really see a reason for the bridge to be raised so high off the ship's hull though.

Coiler wrote:Is there any logical in-universe reason for ISDs to have big exposded bridge towers?

It looks cool. It gives it more height and a more distinctive look.

havokeff wrote:

Coiler wrote:Is there any logical in-universe reason for ISDs to have big exposded bridge towers?

It looks cool. It gives it more height and a more distinctive look.

Plus it means more space in the main body that can be dedicated to the reactor, the guns, and all the other relevant warship accoutrements.

Stupid-ass military tradition. There's your reason. 25,000 years of Coruscanti Nobility wanting to see where they are going from their tower. Design inertia also might explain some of it.

Ryushikaze wrote: Plus it means more space in the main body that can be dedicated to the reactor, the guns, and all the other relevant warship accoutrements.

I don't consider that an acceptable tradeoff, but it is a valid reason.

Not really, seeing as making the hull a bit bigger would be extremely easy given SW tech.

Couple ways to look at it. In the event sensors are down, I don't think an enclosed bridge will be a good idea as there will be a loss of strategic sense.

The other way, is that the raised bridge can also be used for spotting enemy ships and manual targeting in the event the fire control is down.

The tower its self could be justified on the grounds that it provides vertical separate for the ships sensors and other antennas away from the reactor and other systems which may cause mutual interference. Now as for the location of the bridge its self, with freaking windows to the outside, nothing could truly require that, but it seems to just be the way ships are designed in that universe.

I tend to suspect it also reflects a reliance on shields, Star Wars armor plate is probably not that effective against direct hits from big weapons and so serves more to localize damage like a torpedo bulkhead would. If that was the case, then having some windows would not matter a great deal. Its not like real destroyers had well protected bridges anyway.

If you wanted some kind of backup to your main sensors, then a TV camera or WW2 style main battery director would make a hell of a lot more sense then windows.

Concerning windows: I'd think one would always want one alternative method of doing something that doesn't rely on active systems.

It always amazes me how some people will bend over backwards to justify crap design decision in SW with arguments that won't fly in anu other thread. No room for a bridge inside? The poor Imperials can't function without a window to stare through? Hilarious.

The fact of the matter is that a bridge with big exposed windows looks good on film. In-universe, it's a bad idea, but it can still be explained without trying to justify why you're putting your highest officers out on a glass platform: either it is, as said, design inertia; or there are two or more bridges, the proper one deep inside the ship - which might be the one we see at the start of ANH - and a legacy bridge (perhaps the "outer" bridges are just glorified lookout spots?) that various captains prefer to use.

But seriously, "they need windows in case the sensors blow up"? That argument didn't even fly for the Constitution and at least that ship didn't have a honking great window.

Darth Ruinus wrote: Maybe there are some adverse phsycological effects on a starships crew if they are deep inside the ship and never see the outside world. Or morale, morale can be important, but I dont see any other reason.

The "Inside the World of the Star Wars Trilogy" book (I think the updated version) claims that it was psychological yes. it was "Terror styling" to intimidate the enemy by placing their bridge up there, that "resistance is useless" and that their shields are strong.

The other guys' reasons are likely true or factored in too...

Vehrec wrote:Stupid-ass military tradition. There's your reason. 25,000 years of Coruscanti Nobility wanting to see where they are going from their tower.

Best. Answer. Evar.

Although it occurs to me that KDY isn't the only offending party. At least the bridge tower on an ISD looks substantial. Look at the tiny little bridge towers on older Imperial ships or even Corellian and Mon Calamari designs. Those look like they would be obliterated by an errant starfighter. Not just wounded.

Trying to figure out why you think it's exposed. The bridge tower itself is huge and as big as some small starships. Besides considering that the ships rely on their shields for primary protection, I don't see the problem.

However if you have to have one, there isn't much in the way of control stations up there, perhaps it's more of a command observation station than a true control room or 'bridge'. It's possible that there are control rooms, manuvering rooms and CIC style rooms else where in the ship.

Knife wrote:Trying to figure out why you think it's exposed. The bridge tower itself is huge and as big as some small starships. Besides considering that the ships rely on their shields for primary protection, I don't see the problem.

The Executor's loss would speak otherwise.

However if you have to have one, there isn't much in the way of control stations up there, perhaps it's more of a command observation station than a true control room or 'bridge'. It's possible that there are control rooms, manuvering rooms and CIC style rooms else where in the ship.

Even if such stations exist, the ship commanders always seem to be on the upper bridges, putting them in a needlessly vulnerable position.

Personally, I think the reason is a combination of intimidation (At least for ISDs) and simple tradition.

Coiler wrote:The Executor's loss would speak otherwise.

That situation was because of tactics, not design. The Emperor had tied the hands of his ships and the Executor was taking the concentrated fire of the Rebel fleet.

Crom wrote:

Coiler wrote:The Executor's loss would speak otherwise.

That situation was because of tactics, not design. The Emperor had tied the hands of his ships and the Executor was taking the concentrated fire of the Rebel fleet.

The executor was still holding up with the fleet when her shields were knocked down. If the A-Wing hadn't knocked out nav control the Executor could most definitely have survived the battle, even if it was through a covered withdrawal. And when your flagship can be disabled by a errant starfighter this is a very bad design. Especially if your fleet is going to be deploying in gravity wells.

One would think that lesson would have been learned after the Battle of Coruscant...

Most likely, as has been said before, the Star Wars galaxy thinks that as long as something is shielded it's protected. Or, conversley, takes the attitude that if the shields are down the ship is going to go down too no matter how the armor is configured so you might as well give in to aesthetic design preference over what seems to be blazing common sense.

Darth Raptor wrote:

Vehrec wrote:Stupid-ass military tradition. There's your reason. 25,000 years of Coruscanti Nobility wanting to see where they are going from their tower.

Best. Answer. Evar.

Although it occurs to me that KDY isn't the only offending party. At least the bridge tower on an ISD looks substantial. Look at the tiny little bridge towers on older Imperial ships or even Corellian and Mon Calamari designs. Those look like they would be obliterated by an errant starfighter. Not just wounded.

...Mon Calamari ships have an exposed bridge?
I didn't think those flying pickles had any features but the warts and, in some cases, those "wings" sticking out of the sides.

And from the title, I expected this thread to be about the tragic lack of safety railings in Star Wars...

Molyneux wrote:And from the title, I expected this thread to be about the tragic lack of safety railings in Star Wars...

I believe I heard someone say once, while wandering through Nar Shaddaa in Jedi Knight 2, that whoever invents railings in the SW universe is going to become a very rich man.

Darth Raptor wrote:Although it occurs to me that KDY isn't the only offending party. At least the bridge tower on an ISD looks substantial. Look at the tiny little bridge towers on older Imperial ships or even Corellian and Mon Calamari designs. Those look like they would be obliterated by an errant starfighter. Not just wounded.

All I have to say is... Invisible Hand.

And from the title, I expected this thread to be about the tragic lack of safety railings in Star Wars...

It could be a way to weed out officers that are getting a bit long in the tooth. Can't hold your balance on the bridge, grandpa? Then it's a tumble into the depths for you!

All I have to say is... Invisible Hand.

That was my first thought as well. Oodles of armour everywhere and what happens to the command crew? They're left in a little glass pod sticking out of the front. Like a giant "SHOOT ME" sign.

Molyneux wrote:

Darth Raptor wrote:

Vehrec wrote:Stupid-ass military tradition. There's your reason. 25,000 years of Coruscanti Nobility wanting to see where they are going from their tower.

Best. Answer. Evar.

Although it occurs to me that KDY isn't the only offending party. At least the bridge tower on an ISD looks substantial. Look at the tiny little bridge towers on older Imperial ships or even Corellian and Mon Calamari designs. Those look like they would be obliterated by an errant starfighter. Not just wounded.

...Mon Calamari ships have an exposed bridge?
I didn't think those flying pickles had any features but the warts and, in some cases, those "wings" sticking out of the sides.

And from the title, I expected this thread to be about the tragic lack of safety railings in Star Wars...

Some of them. It's painfully hard to see, and I didn't even notice them until I played Battlefront 2. They're big enough for the bridge itself and a turbolift up to it, and that's about it.

Coiler wrote: The Executor's loss would speak otherwise.

How so? The Executor was lost after a coordinated attack by the rebel fleet brought her shields down, then the fighter to the bridge. Really with GT firepower, after the shields are down, where would be a safe place to have the bridge? Even down in the bowls of the ship, GT firepower would obliterate it.

Even if such stations exist, the ship commanders always seem to be on the upper bridges, putting them in a needlessly vulnerable position.

Whew, you're right. Now if only star wars would have concieved of something like a rank system for their military, there could have been other officers in other command nodes....oh wait.

Maybe it's an honor thing? Separating the bridge from the main body means that even if the ship is incapacitated with the weapons, engines, reactors and shield generators in the main hull savaged and half it's crew dead, the captain is still relatively unhurt inside his bridge tower and can still surrender and be captured?

Maybe during a more civilized period in the Republic, when two starships battled, captains would deliberately not aim for the bridge in an act of honorable gentlemanliness? So that while the crews in the main body get blown to bits, both captains can just sit high and mighty in their towers and sip tea?

Of course, when folks smartened up and started aiming for the exposed bridges...